This court directed the respondent university to decide the petitioner college's request for a refund of a penalty imposed for not appointing a principal within two months, keeping in view the settled position of law.
Direction to respondent university to decide the refund of penalty within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 10330 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 10330 of 2014
Date of decision: 26.05.2014
Sadbhavna College of Education
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Panjab University and another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed for refund of the penalty @50,000/- per month for not appointing the Principal in the College by the respondent-University. Reliance has been placed upon the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 14223 of 2010, Khalsa College of Education vs. Panjab University and others decided on 30.08.2013 wherein, it was held that the University could not have imposed any financial penalty upon the colleges for not appointing a regular Principal. The said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 373 of 2014, Panjab University, Chandigarh vs. Khalsa College of Education decided on 07.03.2014.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation dated 09.03.2014, though labelled as a 'Contempt Notice', which would be clear from Annexure P-8 has been filed for refund of the claim and he would be satisfied if the university takes a decision on the said issue.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner and without going into
Gupta Shivani 2014.05.28 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 10330 of 2014
2
the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that since representation dated 09.03.2014 (Annexure P-8) is still pending consideration before the respondent no. 1-University, it would be appropriate if a decision is taken on the said representation/notice (Annexure P-8) within a time bound frame. Accordingly, the said respondent is directed to decide the issue of refund keeping in view the settled position of law, as noticed above. The needful be done within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case an adverse order is to be passed against the petitioner-college, then it is expected that the same will be reasoned and speaking order which will be duly communicated to the petitioner expeditiously.
Writ petition stands disposed of with the above said
observations.
26.05.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE
Gupta Shivani 2014.05.28 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the university is directed to decide the refund of penalty within a time-bound frame.
Whether the petitioner college must be granted a reasoned order if an adverse order is passed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khalsa College of Education vs. Panjab University and othersReferred¶14
CWP No. 14223 of 2010, Khalsa College of Education vs. Panjab University and others
Panjab University, Chandigarh vs. Khalsa College of EducationReferred¶14
LPA No. 373 of 2014, Panjab University, Chandigarh vs. Khalsa College of Education
Sadbhavna College of Education
Panjab University
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
